linux-kernel - Re: [Q] Default SLAB allocator

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Fri, 12 Oct 2012 09:07:04 -0300
From:	Ezequiel Garcia <elezegarcia@...il.com>
To:	David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>,
	Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>
Cc:	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	linux-mm@...ck.org, Tim Bird <tim.bird@...sony.com>,
	celinux-dev@...ts.celinuxforum.org
Subject: Re: [Q] Default SLAB allocator

Hi,

On Thu, Oct 11, 2012 at 8:10 PM, Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org> wrote:
> David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com> writes:
>
>> On Thu, 11 Oct 2012, Andi Kleen wrote:
>>
>>> > While I've always thought SLUB was the default and recommended allocator,
>>> > I'm surprise to find that it's not always the case:
>>>
>>> iirc the main performance reasons for slab over slub have mostly
>>> disappeared, so in theory slab could be finally deprecated now.
>>>
>>
>> SLUB is a non-starter for us and incurs a >10% performance degradation in
>> netperf TCP_RR.
>

Where are you seeing that?

Notice that many defconfigs are for embedded devices,
and many of them say "use SLAB"; I wonder if that's right.

Is there any intention to replace SLAB by SLUB?
In that case it could make sense to change defconfigs, although
it wouldn't be based on any actual tests.

    Ezequiel
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/